Author
Topic: The Impossibility Argument (Read 98690 times)

This guy explains this better than I can: Darwinist theory requires all the stages from one point to another to be individually "advantageous." In an evolutionary process from A to Z (for instance, from a wingless creature to a winged one), all the "intermediate" stages B, C, D, …V, W, X, and Y along the way have to provide advantages for the living thing in question. Since it is not possible for natural selection and mutation to consciously pick out their targets in advance, the whole theory is based on the hypothesis that living systems can be reduced to discrete traits that can be added on to the organism in small steps, each of which carries some selective advantage. That is why Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Given the primitive level of science in the nineteenth century, Darwin may have thought that living things possess a reducible structure. But twentieth century discoveries have shown that many systems and organs in living things cannot be reduced to simplicity. This fact, known as "irreducible complexity," definitively destroys Darwinism, just as Darwin himself feared.

Given the primitive level of science in the nineteenth century, Darwin may have thought that living things possess a reducible structure. But twentieth century discoveries have shown that many systems and organs in living things cannot be reduced to simplicity. This fact, known as "irreducible complexity," definitively destroys Darwinism, just as Darwin himself feared.

I already demonstrated that irreducible complexity is not valid when it comes to things that humans actually design.

Now, are you going to answer my argument, or are you going to continue to ignore it?

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: "None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another."49 - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d020411.html#sthash.3F4h34hW.dpuf

I read the article. It is just a bunch of fraudsters trying to discredit an experiment which showed speciation did in fact take place.

Why don't you read the original book quoted? Why evolution is true by Coyne.

To add to Jag's point: I'm also waiting for you to accept (or decline) my challenge. If you're not sure of your position and don't want to have it thoroughly debunked, I'll accept that. Not responding at all just makes me think you're a coward.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

<clipped>Given the primitive level of science in the nineteenth century, Darwin may have thought that living things possess a reducible structure. But twentieth century discoveries have shown that many systems and organs in living things cannot be reduced to simplicity. This fact, known as "irreducible complexity," definitively destroys Darwinism, just as Darwin himself feared.

As Hitch once said to Sean Hannity: "You strike me as someone who has never read any of the arguments against your position ever".

Have you ever tried to actually read any of the books that describe evolution and discuss the mechanisms for it? Or do you just jump straight to the opinions of fringe lunatics and pseudo scientists that back up your already insular worldview?

Logged

"A resurrected person who is also the son of a virgin could still be talking nonsense. There's no logic that says he must be right. " Christopher Hitchens

So are we down to you posting random quotes from people you've found online and ignoring the arguments we make? That's called preaching, DrTesla, and it's against the rules of the forum.

It isn't preaching at all. You guys have been been listed one citation after another on here while I have been essentially talking out loud and trying to explain things myself. I just thought I wasn't explaining IC very well because so many people were denying that a system or structure could be irreducibly complex.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

<clipped>Given the primitive level of science in the nineteenth century, Darwin may have thought that living things possess a reducible structure. But twentieth century discoveries have shown that many systems and organs in living things cannot be reduced to simplicity. This fact, known as "irreducible complexity," definitively destroys Darwinism, just as Darwin himself feared.

As Hitch once said to Sean Hannity: "You strike me as someone who has never read any of the arguments against your position ever".

Have you ever tried to actually read any of the books that describe evolution and discuss the mechanisms for it? Or do you just jump straight to the opinions of fringe lunatics and pseudo scientists that back up your already insular worldview?

How many books or websites have you read by the intelligent design crowd or people who dispute the validity of Darwin evolution? I do understand the basic arguments Darwin people make because I am disputing them.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

So are we down to you posting random quotes from people you've found online and ignoring the arguments we make? That's called preaching, DrTesla, and it's against the rules of the forum.

It isn't preaching at all. You guys have been been listed one citation after another on here while I have been essentially talking out loud and trying to explain things myself. I just thought I wasn't explaining IC very well because so many people were denying that a system or structure could be irreducibly complex.

Amazing, because it just looks like you are dodging questions you can't answer. Including a debate challenge no less.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

It isn't preaching at all. You guys have been been listed one citation after another on here while I have been essentially talking out loud and trying to explain things myself. I just thought I wasn't explaining IC very well because so many people were denying that a system or structure could be irreducibly complex.

For crying out loud, I've directed you to an argument I just made in the last hour that shows that irreducible complexity doesn't even work when you talk about things humans designed. This is the third time I've brought it up, and I've invited you to rebut it. You've basically ignored it so you can continue to preach about how irreducible complexity destroys evolution, and I'm tired of it.

Either rebut my argument, or recant your own.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

To add to Jag's point: I'm also waiting for you to accept (or decline) my challenge. If you're not sure of your position and don't want to have it thoroughly debunked, I'll accept that. Not responding at all just makes me think you're a coward.

I was reading something to help me explain some things better. I have obviously responded to most everything posted on here but I am kind of outnumbered at this point so I might miss some things or it will take longer to respond. I think some of the stuff that is posted, like examples of variation within a species as an example of cross species evolution, isn't something that I need to respond to because it is self evident that it doesn't prove Darwin evolution theory.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

I do understand the basic arguments Darwin people make because I am disputing them.

For the last time, who are these people you keep referring to as Darwinists and Darwinians?

Edit: you just did it again in the post above - referencing Darwin evolution theory. This tells me again that you don't know what you are arguing against. THERE IS MORE TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION THAT NATURAL SELECTION.

« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 12:15:12 PM by Jag »

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

How many books or websites have you read by the intelligent design crowd or people who dispute the validity of Darwin evolution? I do understand the basic arguments Darwin people make because I am disputing them.

You can dispute something without understanding it - it's called an argument from ignorance, or argument from incredulity. You've been doing it basically this entire thread.

Both intelligent design and irreducible complexity are arguments from incredulity.

I was reading something to help me explain some things better. I have obviously responded to most everything posted on here but I am kind of outnumbered at this point so I might miss some things or it will take longer to respond. I think some of the stuff that is posted, like examples of variation within a species as an example of cross species evolution, isn't something that I need to respond to because it is self evident that it doesn't prove Darwin evolution theory.

Being outnumbered is another reason why you should accept my challenge. It will (would) be one-on-one, and I don't think the most reasonable members here would expect you to reply to them, given that you were already engaged in a one-on-one debate on the same topic.

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

I do understand the basic arguments Darwin people make because I am disputing them.

For the last time, who are these people you keep referring to as Darwinists and Darwinians?

Edit: you just did it again in the post above - referencing Darwin evolution theory. This tells me again that you don't know what you are arguing against. THERE IS MORE TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION THAT NATURAL SELECTION.

Yes, I've acknowledged the mechanism of evolution is both random mutations and natural selection. What are the additional mechanisms, if any?

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

but I am kind of outnumbered at this point so I might miss some things or it will take longer to respond.

I would think you would jump at the chance to have a one-on-one debate with someone if you're feeling outnumbered. Instead, you've 'missed' his debate request, and the posts by people to remind you of it. It should not take more than a minute to say, "oh, sure, I'd love to debate you", or "no, I'm not ready to debate you" or something like that.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

You need to understand that the notion of irreducible complexity is as made up as everything else about ID. They have proven nothing, they have only said that things like eyes seem to confusing to them, so eyes can't be true unless designed. Yes, biologists have gone to the trouble of explaining how eyes evolved, even using grade school level explanations in an effort to get their point across, but he ID'ers are content with saying it can't be true without worrying about the evidence. And you are following in their footsteps. Or crawl marks, whichever seems to apply.

You know how to find bad science with google. Try finding some good stuff.

And I notice you don't bring up things like the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which evolved to go around the heart on its way from the brain to the throat. It first existed in fish, then kept the same configuration as some of those fish slowly evolved into other animals. Which means that that nerve, in giraffes, is over 15 feet long. And it only needs to go a few inches. This is an example of evolution not being planned, but rather haphazard. Yet it sort of works. If the eye is intelligently designed, why to humans, and all mammals, have blind spots, while octopi and squid do not? What sort of intelligent designer gives its creation flaws? Nor does it design in future issues, like cataracts, detached retinas, etc. Unless the designer is a mean old biddy.

Thousand choke to death every year because food and water start their way into the body using the same channel as air, and you are saying an intelligent designer came up with this? Millions have to get their appendix out every year, and not that long ago, appendicitis was a death sentence. And intelligent designer was involved? Thirty percent of the human population suffers from serious back problems at least once in their life, because our backs were designed to be horizontal, not vertical, and they get hurt easily. Tons of problems arise from the fact that our sex organs and our waste disposal system are in such close proximity. Urinary infections in women are often directly caused by sexual activity. Who designed that?

We can't fly. If an intelligent designer built cliffs, he should have also build wings on us so we could survive falling off of them. But nooooo...

Here's a tip from one forum member to another: If you are going to argue against something, be sure you're on the right side to begin with.

If you think you're right, I suggest you go with One Above All's debate challenge, which would make it one on one, not eighty trillion against one. The rest of us just watch. It might be a good idea to consider his challenge/offer.

I do understand the basic arguments Darwin people make because I am disputing them.

For the last time, who are these people you keep referring to as Darwinists and Darwinians?

Edit: you just did it again in the post above - referencing Darwin evolution theory. This tells me again that you don't know what you are arguing against. THERE IS MORE TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION THAT NATURAL SELECTION.

Yes, I've acknowledged the mechanism of evolution is both random mutations and natural selection. What are the additional mechanisms, if any?

Answer my first question first. I've asked repeatedly and you've ignored it each time. What are you referring to when you say "Darwinian" or "Darwinist" or Darwin evolutionist or whatever?

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

How many books or websites have you read by the intelligent design crowd or people who dispute the validity of Darwin evolution? I do understand the basic arguments Darwin people make because I am disputing them.

You can dispute something without understanding it - it's called an argument from ignorance, or argument from incredulity. You've been doing it basically this entire thread.

Both intelligent design and irreducible complexity are arguments from incredulity.

Irreducible complexity isn't an argument, it is an observation of the nature of a system or structure. Do you deny that a complex structure or system will malfunction if just one part or process is removed?

Intelligent design is an argument. IC is factual observation.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

I do understand the basic arguments Darwin people make because I am disputing them.

For the last time, who are these people you keep referring to as Darwinists and Darwinians?

Edit: you just did it again in the post above - referencing Darwin evolution theory. This tells me again that you don't know what you are arguing against. THERE IS MORE TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION THAT NATURAL SELECTION.

Yes, I've acknowledged the mechanism of evolution is both random mutations and natural selection. What are the additional mechanisms, if any?

Answer my first question first. I've asked repeatedly and you've ignored it each time. What are you referring to when you say "Darwinian" or "Darwinist" or Darwin evolutionist or whatever?

I essentially mean people who accept Darwin's theory and the modifications to it since Darwin. What is your definition?

I'd rather not get into semantics on every post because that is a debate trick used by some. I think people understand who I mean when I say that.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

How many books or websites have you read by the intelligent design crowd or people who dispute the validity of Darwin evolution? I do understand the basic arguments Darwin people make because I am disputing them.

I'll take that as "I haven't bothered to actually study the arguments that proponents of evolution make".

I have actually spent a lot of time and effort educating myself as to the position of people such as yourself, and even recently went to a presentation called "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Frank Turek.

Just from Richard Dawkins I could recommend "Climbing Mount Improbable", "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The Greatest Show on Earth". Once you see how elegant, persuasive, and awe inspiring the evidence for evolution is, you will kick yourself for ever thinking "God did it" was a good explanation. Hell, my then 8 year old son, while looking through a book about prehistoric mammals, was able to note the similarities, and differences, between the early hominid species and describe their gradual change from more ape-like to more person-like. The question then becomes, are you smarter than a third grader?

Logged

"A resurrected person who is also the son of a virgin could still be talking nonsense. There's no logic that says he must be right. " Christopher Hitchens

How many books or websites have you read by the intelligent design crowd or people who dispute the validity of Darwin evolution? I do understand the basic arguments Darwin people make because I am disputing them.

I'll take that as "I haven't bothered to actually study the arguments that proponents of evolution make".

I have actually spent a lot of time and effort educating myself as to the position of people such as yourself, and even recently went to a presentation called "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Frank Turek.

Just from Richard Dawkins I could recommend "Climbing Mount Improbable", "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The Greatest Show on Earth". Once you see how elegant, persuasive, and awe inspiring the evidence for evolution is, you will kick yourself for ever thinking "God did it" was a good explanation. Hell, my then 8 year old son, while looking through a book about prehistoric mammals, was able to note the similarities, and differences, between the early hominid species and describe their gradual change from more ape-like to more person-like. The question then becomes, are you smarter than a third grader?

My argument isn't "God did it", it is natural selection and random mutations don't account for irreducible complexity so maybe there is a creator of some sort, maybe there is another evolutionary pathway that does not involve random mutations and natural selection, maybe there is another natural process that we have not uncovered that explains it. This demonstrates that I am open minded and not a zealot or ideologue on this issue.

I did get into how the first lifeform originated to make the point that we can not rule out a "God" because nobody has proven life can originate from non-life via a natural process of some sort.

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

I do understand the basic arguments Darwin people make because I am disputing them.

For the last time, who are these people you keep referring to as Darwinists and Darwinians?

Edit: you just did it again in the post above - referencing Darwin evolution theory. This tells me again that you don't know what you are arguing against. THERE IS MORE TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION THAT NATURAL SELECTION.

Yes, I've acknowledged the mechanism of evolution is both random mutations and natural selection. What are the additional mechanisms, if any?

Answer my first question first. I've asked repeatedly and you've ignored it each time. What are you referring to when you say "Darwinian" or "Darwinist" or Darwin evolutionist or whatever?

I essentially mean people who accept Darwin's theory and the modifications to it since Darwin. What is your definition?

I'd rather not get into semantics on every post because that is a debate trick used by some. I think people understand who I mean when I say that.

Oh, my apologies for not being sure of your made up definition and expecting you to provide one. What on earth could I have been thinking?

I don't have a definition because I would never use that term. That's why I asked for yours, since you introduced the term to the discussion. If you want to avoid semantic debate, use terms as intended and supply a definition if you are asked for one.

Now I also asked you to provide me with one such person to discuss this with - good on you for detecting the sarcasm. You've more or less created a fake persona to argue against, thus my request that you produce one.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

HA! I'm a communications major, and that assumption you just made is the root cause of a significant portion of all disagreements - people making assumptions that others understand things they don't actually understand. Damn straight I'm going to expect you to say what you mean, and mean what you say.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Irreducible complexity isn't an argument, it is an observation of the nature of a system or structure. Do you deny that a complex structure or system will malfunction if just one part or process is removed?

Intelligent design is an argument. IC is factual observation.

If this is how you want to play it...

An observation can be a fallacy, and therefore wrong. You need to support your claim that it is factual, and so far you have totally failed to do so.

My argument earlier shows that it is not something that is observed in things that humans design (and by extension, cannot be used to support an argument, such as intelligent design). So you either need to rebut my argument, or recant your claim that it is a factual observation.

EDIT--By the way, I am quite aware of your 'gotcha' question. I know good and well that some things that people make won't work if you take pieces off. It is your assumption (and yes, it is an assumption) that biology works the same way. The only thing you actually show when you make this assumption is that you don't understand biology or evolution.

Really, the problem here is that irreducible complexity is a concept made up by people who oppose evolution, and given a science-sounding name so as to make people think that it's scientific. But what it actually is, is a fallacy - the 'observation' that something is so complex that it must have been designed/made. Which is textbook incredulity. Claiming that it isn't a fallacy because it's an 'observation' and not an 'argument' is meaningless semantics.

« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 12:50:03 PM by jaimehlers »

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

How many books or websites have you read by the intelligent design crowd or people who dispute the validity of Darwin evolution? I do understand the basic arguments Darwin people make because I am disputing them.

You can dispute something without understanding it - it's called an argument from ignorance, or argument from incredulity. You've been doing it basically this entire thread.

Both intelligent design and irreducible complexity are arguments from incredulity.

Irreducible complexity isn't an argument, it is an observation of the nature of a system or structure. Do you deny that a complex structure or system will malfunction if just one part or process is removed?

Intelligent design is an argument. IC is factual observation.

Do you accept that you are talking about how an animal works today? Not how it evolved?